INVEST IN CARING NOT KILLING!

by Steve Sun Jul 07, 2002 20:45

My congratulations to all who took part in the protest, it seems however that more attended than protested. However we must never give up, WELL DONE!!!

by Joe Thu Jul 11, 2002 02:38 jdomhan at yahoo dot com

I find it interesting that despite all the anti-American hysteria, the a major attraction of the air show was the Luftwaffe Tornado. Very few of the aircraft were American. The plane that has killed the most civilians has been the Boeing 767, responsible for killing almost 3000 at the World Trade Center.

Joe

by Emma Goldman Thu Jul 11, 2002 09:43

Shut up you twat the US killed 6 million in Indochina from 1957 to 1975.

Your imperialist governement's days are numbered.

Libertarian Communist.

by Joe Thu Jul 11, 2002 19:38

Emma,
I would like to know your source for those figures. It was only after 1975 that a phenomena known as the "boat people" came about. This was well after the US stopped all bombing in Southeast Asia in August 1973. A million also died in concentration camps in Cambodia between 1974 to 1979 under the rule of Pol Pot. Also, I think we should be debating issues, not resorting to name calling.

Joe

by Steve Fri Jul 12, 2002 21:02

Who rendered political, diplomatic and military support to the khmer rouge, the very same people who played a major role in their rise to power.
Uncle sam and allies, thatcher via the sas provided military assistance to the khhmer rouge, an organisation rightly described as the kampuchean nazis. American military personnel were also active, and these are the people who engage in hypocritical cant about "human rights".

by Joe Sun Jul 14, 2002 22:00

Steve,
Actually it was the US who tried to stop the Cambodian Holocaust, yet it was the US who was accused of genocide when, according to UN statistics, the population of both North and South Vietnam increased. Blaming the US for the genocide of the Khmer Rouge is like blaming the US for the Nazi Holocaust.

Joe

by Phelim Mon Jul 15, 2002 00:45 phelimm at iolfree dot ie

Joe,

You're entitled to defend the US if you want to but you'd be more convincing if you got your facts right. You were factually incorrect in every one of three postings you made.

"Very few of the aircraft were American. "

There were 5 US aircreaft at the Salthill airshow, the single largest foreign contingent (see www.salthillairshow.com)

"It was only after 1975 that a phenomena known as the "boat people" came about"

That has nothing to do with the number of casualties caused by aerial bombing. Why did you bring in this complete non sequitor?

"Actually it was the US who tried to stop the Cambodian Holocaust"

The Vietnamese army kicked the Khmer Rouge out of Cambodia. At this point the Khmer Rouge genocide campaign was indisputable. The US (with Chinese support) succesfully INSISTED that the Khmer Rouge be maintaned as the official Cambodian represntative at the UN for years afterwards. Hardly compatible with your assertion?

"it was the US who was accused of genocide when, according to UN statistics, the population of both North and South Vietnam increased"

It is possible that during the Nazi holocaust the worldwide Jewish population actually increased. What's the population of Rwanda, or of Armenians? That's not the point. It's the attempt, the scale, that counts, not whether it succeeded. Genocide is clearly defined under international law. I suggest you do some reading.

It's trendy now to say that any fool can learn the facts, that education is about analysing them. By that definition you're not even at the "any fool" level.

BTW, most pro-US commentators on the Net are bad mannered and uninformed. One out of two isn't bad.

Phelim

by Joe Mon Jul 15, 2002 19:40

Phelim,
No, Phelim, I think you need to get your facts straight. If it was not for the US military hardware and the military industrial complex most of Europe- including Ireland-would be speaking German today. It was because of aircraft like the F-16 and B-1 that there is a chance for peace in Kosovo. No, Phelim, I think you have an intense hatred of the United States.

Joe

by King Mob Thu Jul 18, 2002 12:08

Of course if Wolfe Tone got his way theres a chance we'd be speaking French. Or mind you wasn't there another language, back way back, before another country forced their language onto us. On bhufuil tu ablta caint Sasannachta? So spare us the Brits saved us from imperialism.

Also studying historical recorders from ww2, you'd learn that we were at greater risk from a british invasion, one bad crop failure during ww2 and they'd have been over.

The chance for peace in Kosovo. Yes the all of the former Yugoslavia is a smoldering pile of rubble, ethic Albanias and serbias are still duking it out in the border and we're still digging up bodies.

Thank god the US arrived and bombed everyone to negotiation table.

by english speaker Thu Jul 18, 2002 21:11

So we'd be speaking German. For a native of Ireland that doesn't seem too different to me from speaking English. We don't speak or native tongue now another foreign language wouldn't make much difference. And as it stands the US military have plans to bomb Cobh and Shannon in the event of thermoglobal nuclear war.

by John Logiz Thu Jul 18, 2002 21:50 Westmeath, (ex-Wisconsin)

Hmmm...

Now, I mean no disrespect to my fellow Americans, but Joe, that 767 killed only the people in one tower (not 3,000) and never got used again after.

And our might air force didn't do much about it. Despite the no fly zones over manhattan and washington.

I'm not nitpicking over the bones of the innocent dead, but to compare military aircraft with a hijacked civilian airliner is ridiculous.

The B767 didn't get to kill people and then go back land, reload and kill even more.
We can't selectively condemn the deaths of the innocent. Scum killed lots of people in my country in a premeditated attack. Now my unelected president wants to finish what his dad started by killing lots of people in Afghanistan and Iraq in premeditated attacks.
So far we have seen more Afghan peasants killed by the USAF than Taliban. the Gulf war and sanctions have killed huge numbers of Iraqi people. Now, in what way is Bush better than Bin Laden? neither was elected by the people they claim to lead. They both spout evil rhetoric to whip up support. Neither cares about ordinary people they kill.
One calls them 'imperialist infidels' and the other 'colateral damage'.
And Bush thinks I should smile and salute him when I go home on vacation?

And as for the aircraft I think the Enola Gay may have killed more people than the Boeing 767.

I'm glad I left the states 'cos I don't want my taxes paying for the deaths of civilians in the third world, while our unelected leaders tell us it is justified.

We're shooting DU into Iraq, giving Iraqi kids leukaemia, bombing weddings, mosques and strafing whole villages in Afghanistan, and all supposedly to 'defend' America.

just cos' a substantial number of my compatriots are too busy absorping the CNN spin, doesn't mean a huge number of us can't see the big picture.
US forces are spread across the Globe to terrorise 'folks we don't like' protect our oil supply and other 'strategic interests'.

That air base in Guam is not there to defend Guam.
It's to have bombers in close range to the middle east and S.E. Asia.
The base in Okinawa is not going to stop people crashing a jet in New York.
All those big aircraft carriers are not out patrolling to defend America. It's to remind people that the folks in the white house and pentagon will flatten people who don't toe the line, and to make sure the cheap oil keeps flowing
The bases in Saudi (where Osama comes from) are there to frighten Iraq and back up Israel.
Osama's family are still on good terms with Bush.

by Joe Thu Jul 18, 2002 22:27

Hi Guys,
It is apparent to me that you guys just have an intense hatred of the US. All of what you guys are saying is really bullshit. The US makes great effeorts to avoid civilian casualties. I seriously question why the US would bomb Shannon and Cobh in the event, now unlikely, of a nuclear war. John, the 767 did not take off again to kill. Let's not forget that 3 other aircraft were hijacked that morning with the intention to kill. The use of the atomic bomb by the Enola Gay,it must be remembered was because Japan, who I believe started the war by attacking Pearl Harbor, refused to surrender. Yes, George Bush was elected. Don't say he wasn't just because people could not read a ballot. By the way, I don't watch CNN, I read. Your statement, John, that the US is "shooting DU into Iraq, giving kids leukemia, bombing weddings, mosques, and strafing whole villages in Afghanistan" is pure nonsense. If the US just wanted to kill civilians, we could do it with no opposition and there would be NOBODY left in Afghanistan. I don't see anything wrong with the US having bases around the world-we do so with the permission of those countries. John, apparently you are ashamed to be an American, and if you are, stay in Ireland. As for King Mob, it is unfortunate that it took the US, and NATo, to bomb Yugoslavia to the negotiating table. If it was not for the US, the Yugoslavs would not have gone to the negotiating table. The Europeans, including the English and Irish, were to afraid to do anything. Former President Clinton was correct in not sending ground troops-the Europeans should have been doing that-but they would prefer the US to take all the casualties.

by King Mob Fri Jul 19, 2002 11:22

The US is making efforts to avoid civilian casualties?

1. World health organisation figures put the deathtoil at the US led sancions againist Iraqi at 500,000 civilians.

2. Tell that to the 6,000 odd dead civilians in Afganistan

Why would the US bomb Shannon and Cobh?

Tactically. Leaked documenties have shown that they were both secondary targets in the event of a nuclear war, to stop them being used as soviet bases. The US would use Knock airport, which was built by US miltary cash, and has the longest runway in europe. These are facts.

The Enola Gay?

The who "started this war anyway" would be a comfort to the tens of thousands of Japanese civilan casulties. The target of one bomb was in fact Tokyo, but it was cloud covered. The bomb was droppped not just to scare the Japanese but to frighten the Russians and Chinese. Truman just wanted to show off his new toy. Thousands of Japanese had to die a horrendous and painful death, so he could do this. Spare us the US behaved honourably crap.

George Bush was elected.

Ah yes, by Katherine Harris who removed 14,000 black voters from the registor, using a system that even her data collectors described as deeply flawed.

And the bullying of vote counters by republican "observers"

And by the grossly illegal behavior of republican lawyers in the supreme court.

Elected my fucking arse.

Bombing Yugoslavia to the negotiating table?

Where do you read this shite, the funny pages? US led campaign happened years after the ethic cleansing. European troops were on the ground in Sarvejo for years before that, hampered by nato and UN restrictions. That illegal and immoral bombing campaign achieved nothing, aside from distracting your people from a satin on Monica's dress.

Your "John America love it or leave it attitude?"

I find that contemptable, what gives you the right to say "my way is the right way" now scram. He's an america and he has the right to criticize and condemn the way his politicians (including your junta president) are behaving and using his tax money.

KM

by Kommy Fri Jul 19, 2002 17:55

Joe-boy,
The treaty that the US eventually signed with the Serb's was essentially the same as the one that was on offer before they went in with the bombers - the Rambouillet Accords, I believe. The only difference was that the US had dropped their demand to have a NATO presence in Serbia. You'd never guess but this was the only item that Serbia refused to accept in the Rambouillet Accords. Do you get the picture?
The agreement that was signed after the bombing is the same as the one the Serbs would have signed prior to the bombing, which would have made the bombing redundant. Couldn't have that!

by Joeboy Sat Jul 20, 2002 03:35

King Mob,
Why didn't the Serbs sign it in the first place? Again, they thought the rest of Europe would do nothing. I find it interesting that after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Arabs were easier to get together than the Europeans were.
As for Iraq, this is the same country that dumped oil in the Persian Gulf (only halted by a TV Guided Bomb built by the US military-industrial complex). His army also lit oil wells on fire, polluting the air. As for the sanctions, it is unfortunate that his people are suffering. But if they are suffering, why doesn't Saddam let independent investigators in. This would be a major PR boon for him.
I don't get my information from the funny pages, as you sarcastically and arrogantly suggest, but from various news sources, some liberal, some conservative.
As for George Bush's election-don't blame it on the fact that people could not read a ballot. I was not a fan of Bill Clinton, but when he was elected, and re-elected, I accepted his victories and still judged him on issues.
John's statements expressed an extreme anti-American position. If he feels America is as bad as he says it is, I believe he should leave.

Joeboy

by Kommy Mon Jul 22, 2002 11:17

Note that I am not King Mob...
The reason the Serb's didn't sign the first treaty was because the yanks insisted on a NATO presence in Yugoslavia (Serbia, basically). They dropped this demand after the bombing campaign and Milosovic signed up.
Now, we can never know what might have happened if that clause was dropped before the bombing campaign (just as we'll never know what might have happened if US agreed to have Osama bin Laden handed over to a third country for trial!) but the sticking clause was obviously not a priority for the Yanks or they'd have left it in when they "won".
Regarding the sanctions against Iraq, it is ridiculous to blame Saddam. The US/UK are imposing the sanctions. Nearly all the independant observers have explicitly stated that they don't believe that Saddam has any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's original objection to the observation team was that they were mostly Americans, probably working for the CIA. He argued to no avail for an independant team of observers.
Saddam is a brutal dictator but he is no worse than those who kill 5000 children a month. In fact some, such as the Tom Nagy who commented on an earlier link, argue that the sanctions are genocide. He supports this with US military reports which estimate the human casualities resulting from lack of water treatment plants. These reports were written before the sanctions took effect and thus any resulting deaths are premeditated.

by Joe Mon Jul 22, 2002 17:26

Kommy,
It is not ridiculous to blame Saddam Hussein-he has shown himself to be a major threat to the area. If the sanctions are so bad, why is it that he does not allow independent observers in?
It seems to me that as long as a leader is anti-American, you, as well as others applaud him. Bascially, this is no different than the US policy during the Cold War of supporting anyone who is anti-Communist, which was also a misguided policy. Next time he invades another country, Ireland can try to stop him.

Joe

by Colin Sat Sep 14, 2002 15:16 colcoen at hotmail dot com

Many of the US contributors to this discussion seem to think that anyone who questions US foregn policy is an anti-American. Ridiculous.

Basically as far these people are concerned the US can do what they damn well like to whoever they damn well like regardless of the impact on human-life. (not to mention Ecology - Kyoto). Anyone who questions the US is anti American.

A similarly ridiculous notion found elsewhere is that the Israelis can do what they damn well like to the Palastinians. Anyone who questions this is anti Semitic.

Its a simple point I'm making really - that your attempts to attribute the questioning of your governments wrongdoings to a dislike for you people. Once again....ridiculous.

by Colin Sat Sep 14, 2002 15:16 colcoen at hotmail dot com

Many of the US contributors to this discussion seem to think that anyone who questions US foregn policy is an anti-American. Ridiculous.

Basically as far these people are concerned the US can do what they damn well like to whoever they damn well like regardless of the impact on human-life. (not to mention ecology/climate - Kyoto). Anyone who questions the US is anti American.

A similarly ridiculous notion found elsewhere is that the Israelis can do what they damn well like to the Palastinians. Anyone who questions this is anti Semitic.

Its a simple point I'm making really - that your attempts to attribute the questioning of your governments wrongdoings to a dislike for you people. Once again....ridiculous.